JB08
Searches for nude pics of Marcos Rojo
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2013
- Messages
- 8,418
Lots of people in the matchday thread were against it, so I obviously assumed people here would be too.Who are you talking to? Can't see anyone against it.
Lots of people in the matchday thread were against it, so I obviously assumed people here would be too.Who are you talking to? Can't see anyone against it.
If the letter of the law that Sky have just shown us is correct, it was the wrong decision. No way you can see Antonio was "clearly obstructing the view of the goalkeeper".Lots of people in the matchday thread were against it, so I obviously assumed people here would be too.
Having someone on the floor in front of you and just behind from where the ball is coming from is most definitely obstructing the GKs view. Correct decision was made.If the letter of the law that Sky have just shown us is correct, it was the wrong decision. No way you can see Antonio was "clearly obstructing the view of the goalkeeper".
I'm not so sure he interfered with the gk but i think he does obstruct azpilicuetaIf the letter of the law that Sky have just shown us is correct, it was the wrong decision. No way you can see Antonio was "clearly obstructing the view of the goalkeeper".
Seeing it again, I agree with this. Looked like Azpi probably could have swung a foot at it if he wasn’t laying there.I mean I don't think he's interfering with the keeper, but I think he's interfering with Azpilicueta's attempts to get to the ball and thus as he is offside its the correct decision.
Camera angles showed that his view was not "clearly obstructed". Only person potentially obscuring the view was Azpi.Having someone on the floor in front of you and just behind from where the ball is coming from is most definitely obstructing the GKs view. Correct decision was made.
Azpi doesn't come into it in this case. GK only.I'm not so sure he interfered with the gk but i think he does obstruct azpilicueta
Also he looks offside the first time soucek tries to shoot and fumbles the ball into him
Very weird passage and i'm still not sure what exactly VAR was looking at there
Camera angles showed that you couldn’t even see the ball. That’s clearly obstructing.Camera angles showed that his view was not "clearly obstructed". Only person potentially obscuring the view was Azpi.
Azpi doesn't come into it in this case. GK only.
Azpi - I'm going off what Sky said. In that it was chalked off because the goalkeepers vision was obstructed.Camera angles showed that you couldn’t even see the ball. That’s clearly obstructing.
And of course Azpi can come into it. Interfering with a defender while offside is offside.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
I don’t need some shitty artwork. It showed the angle from behind the keeper and you couldn’t see the ball half the time.Azpi - I'm going off what Sky said. In that it was chalked off because the goalkeepers vision was obstructed.
On that point, I find it really weird that you think it was. The art work is not mine (unfortunately) but Kepa is a full grown ass man. He may well be crouching but from where the ball was hit from theres just no way Antonio is blocking his vision. Its ludicrous to suggest otherwise.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
From behind the net, and much lower than the GKs actual line of vision. In no way representative of what he could actually see.I don’t need some shitty artwork. It showed the angle from behind the keeper and you couldn’t see the ball half the time.
Whether it was obstructing or not, the camera angle being blocked from the balk doesn’t mean keepers line of sight wasCamera angles showed that you couldn’t even see the ball. That’s clearly obstructing.
And of course Azpi can come into it. Interfering with a defender while offside is offside.
You understand why this is VERY important right?I don’t need some shitty artwork. It showed the angle from behind the keeper and you couldn’t see the ball half the time.
He interfered with Kepa, Azpi, and initially the ball hit off him before the shot. Pick your choosing, he was offside.
I think so too.It was clearly offside, the same way the one that benefited us earlier in the season was offside. He’s on the floor next to the goalie for goodness sakes, of course the keeper had to consider that player. It doesn’t even matter that he’s blocking the ball or not.
That was my first thought too. Although I think it was a defender who got the first touch. So he couldn’t have been offside before the shot on goal.I don’t need some shitty artwork. It showed the angle from behind the keeper and you couldn’t see the ball half the time.
He interfered with Kepa, Azpi, and initially the ball hit off him before the shot. Pick your choosing, he was offside.
Yep, totally agree.I feel like this sort of a decision is something that will still polarize views and that's after a good 18 hours after the event with all camera angles and picking into laws.
What this tells me is it's not a problem with VAR, but more Premier League's interpretation of what VAR is brought in for, which is clear and obvious errors. You can extend that and look at less obvious factors to better the integrity of the game itself, but there has to be a limit. I think this incident surpasses that limit - where it's still neither here nor there and it's too subjective for VAR to step in (remember its for clear and obvious events).
Whether it is or isn't an obstruction for Kepais too subjective to call and I Think Neville was correct in saying, if it takes 3-5 minutes and you're still unsure then you should give the goal because it's there for clear and obvious errors.
I feel like this sort of a decision is something that will still polarize views and that's after a good 18 hours after the event with all camera angles and picking into laws.
What this tells me is it's not a problem with VAR, but more Premier League's interpretation of what VAR is brought in for, which is clear and obvious errors. You can extend that and look at less obvious factors to better the integrity of the game itself, but there has to be a limit. I think this incident surpasses that limit - where it's still neither here nor there and it's too subjective for VAR to step in (remember its for clear and obvious events).
Whether it is or isn't an obstruction for Kepais too subjective to call and I Think Neville was correct in saying, if it takes 3-5 minutes and you're still unsure then you should give the goal because it's there for clear and obvious errors.
Fair enough but..I feel like this sort of a decision is something that will still polarize views and that's after a good 18 hours after the event with all camera angles and picking into laws.
What this tells me is it's not a problem with VAR, but more Premier League's interpretation of what VAR is brought in for, which is clear and obvious errors. You can extend that and look at less obvious factors to better the integrity of the game itself, but there has to be a limit. I think this incident surpasses that limit - where it's still neither here nor there and it's too subjective for VAR to step in (remember its for clear and obvious events).
Whether it is or isn't an obstruction for Kepais too subjective to call and I Think Neville was correct in saying, if it takes 3-5 minutes and you're still unsure then you should give the goal because it's there for clear and obvious errors.
The offside Is factual, whether he’s impeding while being there is subjective, and that’s what the decision balances on.Fair enough but..
The offside position is factual. So after moving on to the subjective bit (interfering) and then deciding its too difficult and allowing the goal (and this being your default) seems like its ignoring the factual (clear and obvious too) assessment VAR has done for you.
Seems a bit illogical somehow although I'm not crystal clear on why I think that exactly, tbh.
But if you default the subjective bit so that we are saying its too difficult let's say it isn't offside (which is saying its onside, essentially)The offside Is factual, whether he’s impeding while being there is subjective, and that’s what the decision balances on.
also while I’m having a moan, the offside may be factual yes, but the way they measured the head offside In this decision was comical, jittering back and forth trying to get it right and then still not having it bang on and then the added dotted line that I assume accounts for the angle. It was quite funny to be honest and is no way accurate enough if that was only marginally offside.
I’ve read this a few times and can’t work it out sorry, there can be a subjective decision on something after an offside has occurred can’t there? It’s not the default goto, it’s just saying he was offside but not interfering.But if you default the subjective bit so that we are saying its too difficult let's say it isn't offside (which is saying its onside, essentially)
Then offside = onside effectively. Because of the "subjective is tricky, we won't bother" sub clause. The "nearly all interfering is subjective" sub clause?
Taking into account that being directly in front of the GK is being called a subjective situation.
There can hardly ever be any interfering ever again can there?
Doesnt matter according to the new rules. If it touches your hand AS an attacking player, make sure to pass the ball a few times before scoringEven though United are one of few teams to regularly benefit from VAR decisions, I still think it's utter bollocks and hasn't fulfilled its purpose of removing controversy and getting major calls right. It just adds to the problem and dilutes goal celebrations.
I mean, Moura is being fouled there, making the handball unavoidable and totally unintentional. It's well harsh.
And I say that as someone who also loves watching Jose get shat on.
It’s amazingEven though United are one of few teams to regularly benefit from VAR decisions, I still think it's utter bollocks and hasn't fulfilled its purpose of removing controversy and getting major calls right. It just adds to the problem and dilutes goal celebrations.
I mean, Moura is being fouled there, making the handball unavoidable and totally unintentional. It's well harsh.
And I say that as someone who also loves watching Jose get shat on.
I think it ends up being that there can't be a discussion about anything subjective.I’ve read this a few times and can’t work it out sorry, there can be a subjective decision on something after an offside has occurred can’t there? It’s not the default goto, it’s just saying he was offside but not interfering.
and the no interfering, yes that’s exactly what I want when decisions are so marginal they take 3-5 minutes to work out.
It doesn't have to be intentional. In a perfect world, play should have stopped as soon as the ref spotted the handballIt’s amazing
the Sheffield United player kicks the ball at mouras arm as he’s mid fall with his head turned. Amazing
It's total bollocks. I hate agreeing with Jamie Redknapp but the fact that Moura is being fouled, has no intention of handling the ball and Harry Kane STILL has to turn a defender inside out before scoring makes a total mockery of the application of that rule. It's a joke.Doesnt matter according to the new rules. If it touches your hand AS an attacking player, make sure to pass the ball a few times before scoring
And this. At least take it back to the original foul. Spurs don't even get that?!I don't care that it was disallowed because of handball. I care that they've been allowed to chalk off the goal because of handball but then can't give the foul that caused him to fall. That's mental.
But it’s not subjective in absolutes I wouldn’t think. Something can be really fifty fifty and take minutes Or days to umm and arr over, others are more clear.I think it ends up being that there can't be a discussion about anything subjective.
Because if in front of the GK is subjective then everything is.
If you say that is too difficult and you go to allowing the goal - which they say they want to - then all subjective interfering is never going to be offside.
If all interfering is subjective, which it seems to be done this way. How is there ever any interfering?
But anyway, on to the handball debate.